The petitioner sought regularization based on an interim order in a pending earlier writ petition. The Court dismissed the petition as an abuse of process, ruling that the petitioner must wait for the final decision of the earlier pending writ petition which determines his service status.
Petition dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1,000/-.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:HHC:7051
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWP No. 8275 of 2024 Decided on 14th August, 2024
Mahender Singh
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
…Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
1Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner: Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter
alia , prayed for the following reliefs:-
1. “Issue a writ a certiorari mandamus or any other writ, order or directions to the respondents to fill the vacant post of category of class-IV in the manner as to adjust the present petitioner. 2. That directions may be issued to the respondents to regularize the petitioner from the date of completion of 8 years of service on the basis of interim order as Annexure P-7 alongwith financial benefits accrue to him.”
2
2024:HHC:7051
petition, this Court is of the considered view that filing of this
writ petition is nothing, but abuse of the process of law. The Court is making this observation for the reason that the petitioner is continuing to be in service on account of an interim order that has been passed in his favour in CWP No.6436 of 2014, copy whereof is appended with the present writ petition as Annexure P-7. Said petition is still pending. Despite this fact, without waiting for the final adjudication of the said writ petition or moving an appropriate application in the said writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the relief that a mandamus be issued to the respondents to regularize his service upon completion of 8 years of service on the basis of interim order that has been passed in his earlier writ petition.
the petitioner is not decided. The petitioner has to wait for the decision of the earlier writ filed by him, because the fate of that
3
2024:HHC:7051
petition will decide his continuity in service as well as subsequent reliefs, if any. Ignoring all these aspects, this premature petition stands filed. The same is, accordingly, dismissed, in light of above observation with cost of Rs.1,000/-, which will be deposited by the petitioner with the High Court Bar Association. Cost be deposited within a period of three weeks’ from today for the purpose of the compliance of this part of the order, list on 05.09.2024.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge
August 14, 2024 (Vinod)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking regularization can be maintained when an interim order in a prior pending writ petition governs the petitioner's service continuity?
Mahender Singh
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Ajay Mohan Goel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
